Michael Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 0refield Road 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

.'LPARTMENTOF 

^'KrT OPERATIONS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Case: No: 2009SO950434 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO QUASH. STRIKE OR DISMISS COMPLAINT 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, 

principle for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) whom avers and files the following 

MOTION TO QUASH, STRICKEN OR DISMISS THE COMPLAINT submitted by the 

Federal Aviation Administration associate Laura Ponto, Esq. hereby asserting by 

respondent that the allegations made in the complaint are not proper or 

reasonable and thereby the complaint should be Quashed, Stricken and 

Dismissed. 

1. On July 21, 2009, FAA Officers, Latonya Williams and Kimmy Poon 

appeared for the initial scheduled inspection at the joint office of Lifeline 

1 Ota 
Cardiology and MR Helicopters, LLC. 

2. On July 23, 2009, FAA Officer, Latonya Williams returned alone for the 

second inspection visit of the MRH drug and alcohol abatement records. 

3. Ms Williams behavior was offensive and unprofessional throughout the 

entire inspection, contrary to the FAA AVR Customer Service Expectation 

Policies. She entered the joint medical office during patient hours, delayed 

patient care, referred to the principle as "Mike" vs. Dr. Selig, and spoke loudly 

enough for unscheduled walk-in patients and secretary to overhear her rude 

tonality. In addition, Ms Williams took an excessive amount of time in doing her 

inspection, over 2 hours. It became evident early on that Ms Williams draws on 

the authority bestowed on her, to impede and create hardship and financial 

damages. 

4. Ms Williams assumed that mechanic Edward Baker was not covered 

under any FAA-Mandated drug/alcohol testing program. 

5. Ms Williams disclosed that there was a policy change that occurred in 

February 2004, requiring all A & P mechanics to be on a company specific drug 

program. 

6. Ms Williams did not provide the specific details or training with regard 

to the specific regulation changes, compliance procedures or of a notification 

system that needed to be put into place, similar to FAA operations, 

maintenance and avionic protocols. 

7. MRH was not notified of this policy change and even more unsettling. 

2 of 8 
the FAA maintenance inspector Gerry Henninger for MRH, also was not aware 

and was therefore unable to inform MRH of this change during the 5 year plus 

period that he frequently inspected the MRH aircraft, located at Lehigh Valley 

International Airport (ABE) and across the street from the Allentown FSDO. In 

fact none of the management personnel at the Allentown FSDO were informed 

of the regulation change during that 5 year period as well. 

8. In April of 2004, MRH underwent a Drug and Alcohol program 

inspection by Vincent Roots and no significant discrepancies were cited (Exhibit 

1). 

9. Mr Roots did not inform MRH that the regulation concerning oil 

mechanics being on the specific companies drug program had changed. It 

was apparent that all the FAA drug abatement personnel as well, were not 

informed of their own in house regulation change. 

10. Mr Roots did not mention or provide instruction or training regarding 

referencing regulations that were not readily apparent or clearly written in the 

compliance statement or operational specifications, did not recommend 

compliance procedures or of a notification system that was in place, that would 

allow or enhance compliance, similar to FAA operations, maintenance and 

avionics protocols. 

11. Respondent explained to Ms Williams that MRH has not been able to 

perform part 135 operations since June 2007, on account of the single pilot 

operator had personal reasons (high conflict divorce, liability issues), has either 

3 of 8 
been unavailable to pass or take his flight exam or the inspector was 

unavailable to perform a flight exam (medical leave). MRH has since ceased 

operating under the name and under the certificate number thereby rendering 

the complaint moot. All financial accounts were subsequently closed. 

12. It is respondents stance to Ms Williams that the operations were 

carried out in good faith and in due diligence, having performed only two part 

135 flights in 2007, none since io the current date, using highly qualified 

mechanics and within the disclosed known regulations as directed by MRH's 

assigned FAA officials and therefore, there was no harm or damages incurred 

and MRH did not put the public at risk. 

13. Respondent contacted FAA officers' supen/isory officials in 

Washington, Jeff Stooky and Steve Heche, following Ms Williams's audit, to get a 

clear understanding of the matter, that was not explained to him by Ms Williams 

and to discuss options as to how to become compliant with the new regulatory 

change. 

15. In an expedient manner and in compliance with these recently 

disclosed regulatory changes, in August 2009, MRH placed Edward Baker on its 

own companies drug program and issued a pre-employment affidavit that 

averred he never had a positive drug or alcohol test and a negative random 

drug test was performed (Exhibit 2). 

16. Ms Williams was finally made aware of these compliance measures. 

4 of 8 
after many unsuccessful attempts to contact her, (stated she was in travel for 

periods of time) but she chose to pursue the violation, never the less. 

17. On August 14, 2009, Ms Williams's letter informed MRH that the 

above violations were under investigation. 

18. On August 29, 2009, respondent addressed further the matters 

described in the August 14, 2009 letter. 

19. On July 23, 2010, respondent was served with a Notice of Proposed 

Civil Penalty, citing a potential fine of $5400 (Fifty Four Hundred Dollars) from 

Laura Ponto. This occurred ower 1 year later, passed the statue of limitations. 

20. On August 6, 2010, respondent sent a letter to Ms Ponto detailing the 

statements of fact, provided evidence and requested an informal hearing. 

21. On September 23, 2010, respondent was served with a letter from Ms 

Williams stating that "We have decided not to take legal enforcement action for 

ttiese apparent violations. Instead, we are issuing this warning notice". We 

continue to expect compliance with all the applicable drug and alcohol 

regulations. 

22. Respondent called Ms Ponto to discuss this letter from Ms Williams. 

Ms Ponto claimed that this letter only dismissed some of the violations, even 

though it clearly sets forth as a bottom line statement that only a warning was 

issued. 

23. The claimed violation for Mr Baker according io \nspec\or Statement 

lOP 9 record, was due to inability to find FAA approved drug and alcohol testing 

5 of 8 
program information for Flight Methods (Exhibit 3). Mr Baker was not employed 

by Flight Methods. Mr Baker at all times was employed and under an FAA 

approved drug and alcohol program through repeated restructuring and large 

corporate buy outs and take overs of several medivac companies -Helicopters 

Incorporated to Keystone Flight Services to Sikorsky Helicopters to Seacor to ERA 

to Air Methods corporatation. Records were difficult to locate due closing and 

relocation of principle offices over the years. During the time period referenced, 

Mr Baker worked for Air Methods Corporation, not Flight Methods. 

24. On October 1, 2010, an informal telephone hearing occurred. This 

hearing was said to be recorded and transcribed. In that discussion it was 

noted the policy change occurred in January 2004, not later. Strict proof 

demanded on trial. 

25. On October 21, 2010, respondent was served with the Final Notice of 

Proposed Civil Penalty and a fine for $5400. 

26. On October 21, 2010, respondent was also served with the 

requested but incomplete copy of the FAA investigation file that did not include 

Ms Williams's letter dated, September 23, 2010, which closed all violations and 

issuing only a warning notice or the telephone hearing transcripts. 

27. The Investigation file also did not include Mr Bakers Affidavit that he 

was on a drug and alcohol testing program and employed by Air Methods Corp 

for the last 2 years (Exhibit 2) or the email dated October 14, 2010, from John 

Hargleroad, drug an alcohol program manager of Air Methods Corporation, to 

6 of 8 
FAAs Chef Stevenson, confirming that Mr Baker was continually on a program 

under their certificate since November 5, 2007 (Exhibit 4). 

28. On October 27, 2010, respondent addressed a letter to Ms Ponto 

requesting a court hearing as well as other production of outstanding discovery 

including the full regulations referenced and adoption dates. 

29. One November 14, 2010, respondent was served with 

documentation from Ms Ponto that confirmed an incorrect request for a hearing 

to be held in Philadelphia as well as a copy of the complaint with 3 counts. 

30. On November 24, 2010, respondent affirmed that the requested 

hearing location was to be in Allentown, PA as previously discussed with Mr 

Ponto and to again remind of the prior requested outstanding discovery that to 

date was still not provided. 

31. On November 29, 2010, an awaited letter from ERA Med was 

received confirming that Mr Baker was on a Drug and Alcohol program from 

May 1, 2006 to November 4, 2007, showing no lapse in monitoring during the 

time frame referenced in the violation (Exhibit 5). 

WHEREFORE, The respondent prays to this Honorable Court that the proposed 

violation (hereby time barred), consisting of a judgment against MRH, (which 

currently does not exist and) and a fine of $5400 (fifty four hundred dollars) (all 

accounts have been closed) be immediately QUASHED, STRICKEN and 

DISMISSED. 

7 of 8 
Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date 

8 of 8 
/ 

-f 

o u s DeDQitment Office of Aviation Medicine 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 

• ' ._u Washington, D.C. 20591 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

APR 2 20(H 

Certiffed-Return Receipt 

File Number: 2004EA910073 

Dr. IVIichael Selig, CEO 

IVI and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 101 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig 

On March 3, 2004, you were informed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was 

investigating alleged violations of 49 CFR Part 40 and 14 CFR Part 121, Appendices I and J. 

After reviewing the evidence compiled during the inspection of M and R Helicopters LLC on 

February 26, 2004 and the documentation submitted in your response dated 

March 18, 2004, it appears that M and R Helicopters LLC did not comply with all provisions of 

the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs as detailed below: 

1. M and R Helicopters LLC's specimen collection procedures do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's collector (Denese Miller/CHS 02) failed to complete Step 1 

item E, Test to Be Performed, on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. 

Corrective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to ensure the 

collector would complete Step 1 on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. In the 

response dated March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copy of an Error 

Correction Training Checklist from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting training for Denese 

Miller. 

2. M and R Helicopters LLC's breath alcohol testing procedures do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's Breath Alcohol Technician (Denese Miller/CHS 02) failed to 

complete Step 1 item C, the Designated Employer Representative, on the Department of 

Transportation Alcohol Testing Form. 

Connective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure that the Breath Alcohol Technician would complete Step 1 of the Alcohol 

Testing Form. In the response dated March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a 

copy of an Error Correction Training Checl<list from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting 

training for Denese Miller. 
3. M and R Helicopters LLC failed to maintain records as required by 49 CFR Part 40. 

Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's laboratory failed transmit the employer specific aggregate 

statistical summary for 2003 to the employer on a semi-annual basis. 

Con'ective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure the lab will send statistical summaries for 2003. In the response dated 

March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copies of aggregate statistical 

summaries for 2003 from LabCorp. 

This is to confirm that you have satisfactorily corrected the above issues. We have given 

consideration to all available facts and concluded that these issues do not warrant legal 

enforcement action. In lieu of such action, we are issuing this letter, which will be made a 

matter of record. We expect that in the future M and R Helicopters LLC's Antidrug and Alcohol 

Misuse Prevention Programs will be in compliance with applicable regulations. 

Sincerely, 

Vincent O. Roots 

Inspector, Compliance and Enforcement 
Employee Name: "ZJcA DSife/ ^ 

Date: ^-J-gOO ^ 

49 CFR 40.25 requires DOT regulated companies to check the drug and alcohol testing record of new 

employees who were previously employed by a DOT regulated employer. 

1. Have you been employed by any DOT regulated company within the last 24 months? (check one) 

YES n NO 

if YES, please provide the name, address and phone number of the facility. (If more than one, list names, 

addresses, phone on the back of this form.) 

Ali^ M^%^cl C<^^^ 

2. Have you ever tested positive or refused to test on any pre-employment drug or alcohol test 

administered by an employer to which you applied for, but did not obtain, safety-sensitive work covered 

by DOT drug and alcohol testing rules during the past two years? (check one) 

n YES • D^T" NO 

Signed: 

ffk.U > 
I0P9 

Inspector Statement 

On Tuesday, July 21, 2009, the FAA inspection team (Latonya Williams and Kimmy 

Poon) conducted an inspection of IVI and R Helicopters, LLC's drug and alcoliol 

programs. During tlie inspection, it was identified that M and R Helicopters, LLC did not 

determine that Eugene Mcintosh and Edward Baker (contractors) were covered under a 

FAA-mandated drug testing program and an alcohol misuse prevention program prior to 

using their services. 

In regards to Eugene Mcintosh, the president/drug program manager of M and R 

Helicopters, LLC, Dr. Michael Selig, stated that Eugene Mcintosh was working for Scott 

Richard Aviation, which is a Part 145 certificate holder that has FAA mandated drug and 

alcohol testing programs. The inspection team visited Scott Richard Aviation on July 21, 

2009, and confirmed with Scott Richard Aviation that it does have an active drug and 

alcohol testing program. It was also verbally confirmed through Scott Richard Aviation 

that Eugene Mcintosh is covered under Scott Richard Aviation's programs. However, 

Eugene Mcintosh was compensated by Dr. Michael Selig and not Scott Richard 

Aviation. 

In regards to Edward Baker, Dr. Michael Selig stated that Mr. Baker works for Flight 

Methods as a Chief Medivac pilot. The inspection team inquired of information 

pertaining to Flight Methods from Dr. Selig and he indicated that he did not have any 

information such as a telephone number or address for the company. A review of the 

FAA's databases (SPAS and iCETS) did not reveal that Flight Methods has an FAA 

approved drug and alcohol testing program. Furthermore, a review of FAA's databases 

(SPAS and iCETS) also does not identify Edward Baker, III as having an FAA approved 

drug and alcohol testing program. 

Latony^^A/illiams, Inspector 

Eastern Compliance and Enforcement Center 

Drug Abatement Division 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public availability to be determined under 5 USC 552 
Page 1 of 2 

From: "Ed Baker" <ebaker@airmethods.com> 

To: <mselig@ptd.net> 

Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2010 10:41 PM 

Subject: FW: Edward L. Baker III 

Mike, below is the letter from our Drug program manager to the FAA. 

Ed Baker 

Base Lead Pilot 

East Stroudsburg Base 

Air Methods Corporation 

(570) 476-2129 phone 

(570) 476-2128 fax 

(570) 730-3131 cell 

ebaker@airmethods.com 

From: John Hargleroad 

Sent: Mon 11/15/2010 11:40 AM 

To: Ed Baker 

Subject: FW: Edward L. Baker III 

Ed, 

Here is a copy of the email that I sent Chet Stevenson with FAA drug abatement. Please feel free to call me if 

you need anything. 

Regards, 

John Hargleroad 

Anti-Drug and Alcohol Program Manager 

PRIA Manager 

Pilot Records Supervisor 

Air Methods Corp 

7301 S. Peoria St. 

Englewood, CO 80112 

Off: 303-749-1373 

Fax: 303-749-1383 

Cell: 314-753-2482 

jhargleroad@airmethods.com 

From: John Hargleroad 

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:45 AM 

To: chet.stevenson@faa.gov 

Subject: Edward L. Baker III 

Chet, 

Edward L Baker III, SSN 158545206, has been continually in the Air Methods DOT Anti-Drug and Alcohol 

program since 11/5/2007. He is a pilot who also holds a A&P certificate, however he is under our master 

H 11/29/2010 
Page 2 of2 

certificate QMLA253U and does not perform any maintenance under our repair station certificate QMLR253U, 

and is not authorized or contracted by Air Methods to do any outside maintenance for M&R Helicopters or any 

other operator. 

Please reply to let me know that you have received this email. 

Regards, 

John Hargleroad 

Anti-Drug and Alcohol Program Manager 

PRIA Manager 

Pilot Records Supervisor 

Air Methods Corp 

7301 S. Peoria St. 

Englewood, CO 80112 

Off: 303-749-1373 

Fax: 303-749-1383 

Cell: 314-753-2482 

jhargleroad@airmethods.com 

11/29/2010 
1 Earhart Drive Suite 11 • Coatesville, PA 19320 484-288-2800 

www.eramedlic.com 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 

NOV 2 9 2010 

Edward Baker 

5 Sarah's Lane 

East Stroudsburg, PA 18302 

Dear Ed, 

This letter is being written to verify that Edward Baker was included in EralMED's drug 

program during his dates of empioyement: 5-1-2006 to 11-4-2007. 

If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at your convenience. 

Thanks, 

n 

/ ^ ^ X^*^*^ 

Melissa Rodriguez 

Accounting IWanager 

mrodriguez@eramedllc.com 

5 
Michael Selig, MD, FACC. 

2816 0refieldRoad 

Allentown, PA. 18104 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

FAA Case #2009SO950434 

V. 

M&R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

RESPONDENT'S BRIEF SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO QUASH. STRIKE OR DISMISS 

COMPLAINT 

1 of 17 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

II. 

III. 

IV. 

V. 

VI. 

VII. 

Table of Authorities 

Index of Appendices 

Statement of Jurisdictio 

Statement of Facts 

Statement of Questions 

Summary of Argument 

Conclusion 

2 of 17 
I. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

MR3A020K COMPLIANCE STATEMENT 

MR3A020K OPERATIONS SPECIFICATIONS 

FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATIONS /AIRMAN'S INFORMATION MANUAL 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION RULES 

OF PRACTICE FOR FAA CIVIL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS 14 C.F.R. § 13.16 AND 

SUBPART G 

ERA MED LEHER 

AIR METHODS CORPORATION EMAIL 

II. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 

The United States District Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant 

to 14 C.F.R. Chapter I, § 13.16 of the FAA Rules of Civil Penalty Proceedings, 

relevant to the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty dated October 21, 2010. 

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, principle for MR Helicopters, 

LLC, (MRH) on July 21, 2009, was audited by FAA Officers, Latonya Williams and 

Kimmy Poon for the initial scheduled inspection at the joint office of Lifeline 

Cardiology and MRH helicopters, LLC. On July 23, 2009, FAA Officer, Latonya 

Williams returned alone for further inspection of the MRH drug consortium 

3 of 17 
records. Ms Williams behavior during that non-accompanied visit was offensive 

and unprofessional throughout the inspection, contrary to the FAA AVR 

Customer Service Expectation Policies. She entered the joint medical office, 

referred to the principle as "Mike" vs. Dr. Selig, and spoke loudly enough for 

unscheduled walk-in patients and secretary to overhear her rude tonality. In 

addition, Ms Williams took an excessive amount of time in doing her inspection, 

over 2 hours, thereby delaying respondents patient core responsibilities. It 

became clearly evident early on that Ms Williams draws on the authority 

bestowed on her, to impede and create hardship and financial damages. 

Ms Williams mode the primary assumption that mechanic Edward Baker 

was not covered under any FAA-Mandated drug testing program and refused 

to deviate from that false assumption, despite noting otherwise. Ms Williams also 

disclosed that there was a policy change that occurred in February 2004, 

requiring all A & P mechanics to be on a company specific drug and alcohol 

program. Ms Williams did not provide the specific details referencing this policy 

change or training with regard to specifically referencing the regulation 

changes, compliance procedures or of a notification system that needed to be 

put into place, similar to FAA operations, maintenance and avionic protocols. 

MRH was not notified or aware of this policy change and even more unsettling, 

the FAA maintenance inspector Gerry Henninger for MRH, also was not aware 

and was therefore unable to inform MRH of this change during the 5 year plus 

period that he frequently inspected the MRH aircraft, located at Lehigh Valley 

4 of 17 
International Airport (ABE) and across the street from the Allentown Flight 

Standards District Office (FSDO). In fact none of the management personnel at 

the Allentown FSDO were informed of the regulation change during that 5 year 

period as well. 

Of concern, in April of 2004, MRH underwent a Drug and Alcohol 

program inspection by FAA drug abatement officer, Vincent Roots and no 

significant discrepancies were cited (Exhibit 1). Mr Roots did not inform MRH that 

the regulation concerning all mechanics being on the specific companies drug 

program had changed. It was apparent that not all the FAA drug abatement 

personnel were informed of their own in house regulation change. Mr Roots did 

not mention or provide instruction or training regarding referencing regulations 

that were not readily apparent or written in the compliance statement or 

operation specifications, nor recommended compliance procedures or of a 

notification system that was in place, similar to FAA operations, maintenance 

and avionics protocols. 

Respondent explained to Ms Williams that MRH has not been able to 

perform part 135 operations since June 2007, on account of the single pilot 

operator has for personal reasons (high conflict divorce, liability issues) either has 

been unavailable to pass or take his flight exam or the inspector was 

unavailable to perform a flight exam (medical leave). MRH has since ceased 

operating under the name and under the certificate number thereby rendering 

the complaint moot. All finonciols have been terminated under the MRH name 

5 of 17 
and ownership of the helicopter has been changed. 

It is respondents stance to Ms Williams that the operations were carried 

out in good faith and in due diligence, having performed only two port 135 

flights in 2007 and none since, using highly qualified mechanics and within the 

disclosed known regulations as directed by MRH's FAA officials and therefore, 

there was not harm or damages caused and MRH did not put the public at risk. 

Respondent contacted FAA officers' Jeff Stooky and Steve Heche, 

following Ms Williams audit, to get a clear understanding of facts that were not 

explained to him by Ms Williams and to discuss options as to how to become 

compliant with the new regulatory change. In on expedient manner and in 

compliance with these recently disclosed regulatory changes, in August 2009, 

MRH placed Edward Baker on its own companies drug program and issued a 

pre-employment affidavit that averred he never had a positive drug or alcohol 

test and a negative random drug test was performed (Exhibit 2). Ms Williams 

was finally made aware of these compliance measures, after many 

unsuccessful attempts to contact her, (stated she was in travel for periods of 

time) but she chose to pursue the violation, never the less. 

On August 14, 2009, Ms Williams's letter informed MRH that the above 

violations were under investigation. On August 29, 2009, respondent addressed 

further the matters described in the August 14, 2009 letter. Over 1 year later, 

past the statue of limitations, on July 23, 2010, respondent was served with a 

Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty, citing a potential fine of $5400 (Fifty Four 

6 of 17 
Hundred Dollars) from Laura Ponto. On August 6, 2010, respondent sent a letter 

to Ms Ponto detailing the statements of fact, evidence and request for on 

informal hearing. Also sent was corrected information that Mr Baker did not 

work for Flight Methods but an affidavit that Mr Baker hod worked for Air 

Methods Corporation. 

On September 23, 2010, respondent was sen/ed with a letter from Ms 

Williams stating that "We hove decided not to take legal enforcement action 

for these apparent violations. Instead, we are issuing this warning notice". We 

continue to expect compliance with all the applicable drug and alcohol 

regulations. Respondent called Ms Ponto on to discuss this letter from Ms 

Williams. Ms Ponto claimed that this letter only dismissed some of the violations, 

even though it clearly sets forth as a bottom line statement that a warning was 

issued without any uncertainty. 

On October 1, 2010, on informal telephone hearing was held before 

field manager Mr Fronkle, attorneys Charles Riley and Ms Ponto. This hearing 

was said to be recorded and transcribed. In that discussion it was noted the 

policy change occurred in January 2004, not later. On October 21, 2010, 

respondent was served with the Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty for a fine 

of $5400. On October 21, 2010, respondent was also served with the requested 

but incomplete and redacted copies of the investigation file, that did not 

include Ms Williams letter dated, September 23, 2010, which closed all violations 

and issuing only a warning notice. It did not include the telephone hearing 

7of 17 
transcripts or updated information on Mr Bakers employment. It did not include 

updated information requested by FAA inspector Chet Stevenson, for the 

confirmation of employment by Air Methods Corp and that he was continually 

enrolled in a drug and alcohol program (Exhibit 3). 

On October 27, 2010, respondent addressed a letter to Ms Ponto 

requesting a court hearing as well as production of outstanding discovery 

including the full regulations referenced and adoption dotes. On November 14, 

2010, respondent was served with documentation from Ms Ponto, that noted on 

inaccurate request for a hearing to be held in Philadelphia as well as a copy of 

the complaint with 3 counts. On November 24, 2010, respondent affirmed that 

the requested hearing location was to be in Allentown, PA as previously 

discussed with Ms Ponto and to again remind of the prior requested discovery 

that to dote was still not provided. Preliminary Objections were filed on 

November 27, 2010. 

IV. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED 

1. Did Ms Williams or Ms Ponto adequately pursue under due diligence 

and in good faith the correct information for employment of Mr Baker to 

determine if he indeed was under an FAA approved drug and alcohol program? 

Suggested Answer: No. 

2. Did Ms Williams or Ms Ponto adequately pursue under due diligence 

and in good faith that Mr Baker was employed by Air Methods Corporation rather 

8 of 17 
than Flight Methods to determine if he indeed was under on FAA approved drug 

and alcohol program? Suggested Answer: No. 

3. Is the burden proof for on allegation on the agency under §13.224? 

Suggested Answer: Yes. 

4. Was the conduct of Ms Williams inappropriate and unprofessional 

contrary to the AVR Customer Service Expectation Policies and therefore 

represents undue harassment? Suggested Answer: Yes. 

5. By the failure to inform MRH of a regulation change by FAA inspector 

Mr Roots in April 2004, 2 or more months after a regulation change occurred, 

encouraged a violation? Suggested Answer: Yes. 

6. Did finding MRH compliant with the drug and alcohol abatement 

regulations by inspector Mr Roots in April 2004, encourage the current violation? 

Suggested Answer: Yes 

7. By the failure to inform MRH of a regulation change by inspector Mr 

Roots in April 2004, 2 or more months after a regulation change occurred, is 

holding the operator to a higher standard than its own FAA officers? Suggested 

Answer: Yes. 

8. By the failure to inform MRH of a regulation change by inspector Mr 

Roots in April 2004, 2 or more months after a regulation change occurred, show a 

further defect due to on absent notification system? Suggested Answer: Yes. 

9 of 17 
9. By the failure of MRHs two inspectors and the Allentown FSDO to be 

mode aware that a regulation change occurred, show a further defect in the 

absent notification system? Suggested Answer: Yes 

10. Does by virtue of no notification system in place to moke operators 

aware when a regulation change occurs, make it impossible to ever be 100% 

compliant and therefore prone to violation? Suggested Answer: Yes 

11. Are all the actual drug and alcohol abatement regulations property 

displayed, clearly evident and written out in the compliance statement and 

operation specifications? Suggested Answer: No. 

12. Are all the actual drug and alcohol abatement regulations ports 40 

and 120 and subsequent appendices listed in the standard Federal Aviation 

Regulations/Airman Information Manual? Suggested Answer: No. 

13. Has MRH operated under due diligence and in good faith with the 

known knowledge base and direction by the FAA inspectors and Allentown 

FSDO? Suggested Answer: Yes. 

14. Has MRH caused hardship, damages or put the public at risk? 

Suggested Answer: No. 

15. Has MRH not been operating since 2007, has not used its certificate 

and has closed its financial accounts make the violation moot at this point? 

Suggested Answer: Yes. 

10 of 17 
16. Did MRH represent a small business and hod been operating at a 

financial loss since 2006? Suggested Answer: Yes. 

17. Is this violation past the statue of limitations and thereby time barred? 

Suggested Answer: Yes. 

17. As a result of all of the above issues, should this Civil Penalty be 

quashed, dismissed and stricken? Suggested Answer: Yes. 

VI. STATEMENTS OF ARGUMENT 

The primary premise for the violations of this cose rests on the assumption that 

Edward Baker A&P was not on a drug/alcohol testing program when performing 

safety sensitive functions on the MRH aircraft. The claimed violation for Mr Baker 

according to Inspector Statement lOP 9 record, was due to on inability to find FAA 

approved drug and alcohol testing program information for Flight Methods (Exhibit 

4). This underiying premise was and always has been fundamentally incorrect. 

Mr Baker has always been employed since 1996 by the regions University 

Medivac Hospital service, always on a drug and alcohol program. Mr Baker was 

employed by Helicopters Incorporated in 1996. They lost the contract and 

Keystone Helicopters took them over in late 2006. Several company buy outs and 

acquisitions occurred resulting in Keytone to Seacor to Aeromed to Sikorsky to ERA 

Med (from May 1, 2006- November 4, 2007(Exhibit 5) He has been employed by 

Air Methods Corporation, from November 5, 2010 to the present (Exhibit 3). Mr 

11 of 17 
Baker in addition was concurrently on the National Guard drug/alcohol program 

in his capacity as a Notional Guard A&P and Helicopter pilot. 

Ms Williams and Ponto were given this evidence, but did not pursue the 

proper lookup to confirm the information that respondent provided was true as 

the burden of proof is on the agency under § 13.224. Ms Williams did investigate 

the other mechanic/IA doing maintenance functions on MRH aircraft and 

confirmed information given was correct as stated and withdrew all violations on 

that behalf. Ms Williams let the ball drop in reference to Mr Baker. Had she 

pursued the same process as she did with the other mechanic/IA, she would hove 

arrived at the some conclusion. Apparently her intent was to not deviate from her 

prior assumptions and to violate respondent no matter what, who is a small 

business owner trying to provide services in order to cover costs and provide 

unique accessory medical and community services. 

Ms Williams next mode reference to 14 C.F.R. Port 121, Appendix I and J 

and 49 C.F.R. part 40. This was the first time these were ever mentioned. These 

regulations ore not disclosed, cleoriy delineated or spelled out in the 

compliance statement, operational specifications. While the reference 

numbers ore listed, without inside information, one would reasonably conclude 

from reading the text, that as long as o mechanic is on a program that there is 

compliance. Of particular interest is that these regulations ore also not 

contained in the Standard FAR/AIM and thereby one con assume ore less 

important than other regulations that ore cleoriy disclosed in the signed 

12of 17 
operation specifications. These regulations ore thereby hidden and concealed 

making compliance difficult to impossible. 

By way of further answer, it is not proper or reasonable to expect on 

operator to randomly find text not clearly written, spelled out in the compliance 

statement, operation specifications or FAR/AIM and to review hundreds of 

pages of text to focus, find, comprehend, compare and determine if a random 

change in a single isolated regulation hod occurred. It is not stated where the 

exact source location of these unidentified and hidden (fine print) regulations 

ore to be located or on what time interval to carry out this tedious hit or miss 

search procedure that is prone to misinterpretation and error, therefore, it is 

impossible to ever be completely compliant at any point in time, if a regulation 

changed or update occurs, without knowing. It is also impossible to do this time 

consuming, random search on a regular basis and is more prone to mistake and 

entrapment than the forthright notification procedure that is in place for all 

other procedures pertaining to the other chapters in the operation 

specifications, which uses a effective, personalized one on one approach by a 

known and established FAA inspector. 

Ms Williams informed the respondent that the regulation changes 

occurred in February of 2004. The operation specifications were signed off in 

January 2004 (Exhibit 6). MRH was not informed of the regulation change by Mr 

Roots in April of 2004, when MRH underwent its first FAA drug/alcohol inspection 

(Exhibit 1). MRH was not informed during 5 years of FAA operations inspections 

13 of 17 
by Frank Alotto, was not informed during frequent maintenance inspections by 

FAA inspector Gerry Henninger. The Allentown FSDO is located across the street 

from the MRH aircraft and its officer's inspected frequently during their doily 

activities at the Lehigh Valley International Airport (ABE) where the aircraft has 

been hangored for over 10 years, never to find MRH in violation of FAA 

regulations. The manager of the Allentown FSDO, Mr Wodsworth, also was 

unaware of the policy change. Therefore the FAA's officers and its own drug 

abatement officer was also not informed of the regulation change just as MRH 

was not. It is therefore unreasonable to hold the respondent to a standard 

higher than their own FAA officials or drug inspection officers who themselves 

did not know or inform MRH of the regulation change. Ms Ponto stated the 

actual change occurred in Jonuor/ of 2004, 1 month divergent to the 

information stated by Ms Williams. The requested reference was not provided. 

14 C.F.R. part 121, Appendix I and J and 49 C.F.R. port 40 ore not 

disclosed and no notification procedure was in place to inform the operator of 

this change, contrary to the routine protocol followed by all other operation 

specification chapters which included a regular notification procedure, written 

operation specification revisions, physical replaced pages and subsequent resignoff and confirmation of the new pages that the operator is aware and 

agrees. It is therefore not proper or reasonable to hold MRH responsible for 

changes he was not formally or otherwise notified of. 

Regulations 135.251 and 135.255 as written in the compliance statement 

14 of 17 
and confirmed by the respondent does not state inherently that MRH must 

directly test each employee who performs a safety sensitive function (Exhibit 7) 

but states empirically that any contractor must be covered by an FAA 

approved drug and alcohol testing program. These individuals referred to, did 

comply with drug and alcohol testing regulations by their full time employers. 

In administrative law "In the inferprefotion of the language of 

regulations, where doubt exists as to the intent of the meaning of the language 

written and enacted by a governing body, the language shall be interpreted in 

favor of the operator and against any implied extension of the restriction". 

It is averred that all individuals performing safety sensitive functions on 

MRH aircraft at all times hove been subject to a random drug and alcohol 

testing program and have never hod a history of a positive testing result in the 

lost 10 known years. 

There is all reason to believe and in good faith, that under the stated 

circumstances that MRH operated in due diligence and in accordance to the 

knowledge sets of the Allentown FSDO, its inspectors and the regulations that 

were cleoriy set forth, written and described in the compliance statement, the 

operational specifications and the FAR/AIM. Once MRH was mode aware of 

the regulations that hod changed (that the respondent, the FAA operational 

and maintenance inspectors, the FAA drug/alcohol inspector and the 

Allentown FSDO were not notified or informed), the two part-time A/P 

mechanics were enjoined to the existing drug and alcohol program that MRH 

15of 17 
already hod in place for its pilot since 2002. 

MRH has not been able to carry on port 135 operations since June 2007, 

on account of the single pilot operator has either been unavailable to pass or 

take his Port 135 proficiency check or the inspector was unavailable to perform 

the check (Exhibit 8). MRH has since ceased operating under the name and 

under the certificate number thereby rendering the complaint moot. All 

financial records have closed. The statue of limitations has been exceeded 

since it was over a year from the time of the inspection and the claims ore 

thereby time barred. 

This violation represents on attack on a small business owner. What really 

drives the US economy? Small business owners with fewer than 500 employees 

drives the US economy by providing jobs for over half of the nations privet 

workforce. The latest figures from the Small Business Association show that small 

business with fewer than 20 employees increased by 853,074 during 2005-2008. 

Small business drives the American economy as stated by Dr. Chad Montray, 

chief economist for the office of advocacy in a press release. Small businesses 

are job creators during this hard crunch on our economy, we con not afford to 

loose these small businesses and the numbers prove it. The respondent is a small 

business owner. With today's economy we cannot afford to drive anyone out 

of business. MRH in addition has been affected by the economic downturn and 

has been operating at o loss for many years. 

16of 17 
Safety in aviation is a team effort, among individuals with varied knowledge 

and skill sets. How that integration occurs determines the effective spread of 

information and the success in safe operations. Port of the FAA's responsibility is to 

inform and teach when needed. Regulations act as the reference points, need to 

be easily accessible, cleoriy described, must be effectively applied and complied 

with. If changes occur there must be a forthright, prompt method of notification 

to alert the interested parties. 

VII. CONCLUSION 

The violations ore time barred. The proposed violations are not warranted 

including a judgment against MRH, (which currently does not exist) and a fine of 

$5400 (fifty four hundred dollars) {for a company that has terminated its financial 

accounts} therefore all claims must be immediately QUASHED, STRICKEN and 

DISMISSED. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

17of 17 
^ 

1,0 n*.,....* * Office of Aviation Medicine 800 independence Ave., S.W. 

U.S Department Washington, D.C. 20591 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

APR 2 2004 

Certified-Return Receipt 

File Number: 2004EA910073 

Dr. Michael Selig, CEO 

M and R Helicopters LLC 

2045 Westgate Drive, Suite 101 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Dr. Selig 

On March 3, 2004, you were informed that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was 

investigating alleged violations of 49 CFR Part 40 and 14 CFR Part 121, Appendices I and J. 

After reviewing the evidence compiled during the inspection of M and R Helicopters LLC on 

February 26, 2004 and the documentation submitted in your response dated 

March 18, 2004, it appears that M and R Helicopters LLC did not comply with all provisions of 

the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs as detailed below: 

^'" 

^ 1. M and R Helicopters LLC's specimen coilection procedures do not meet tiie 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's collector (Denese Miller/CHS 02) failed to complete Step 1 

item E, Test to Be Performed, on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. 

Corrective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to ensure the 

collector would complete Step 1 on the Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form. In the 

response dated March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a copy of an Error 

Correction Training Checklist from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting training for Denese 

Miller. 

2. n/l and R Helicopters LLC's breatii aicohoi testing procedures do not meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 40. Specifically: 

M and R Helicopters LLC's Breath Alcohol Technician (Denese Miller/CHS 02) failed to 

complete Step 1 item C, the Designated Employer Representative, on the Department of 

Transportation Alcohol Testing Form. 

Corrective Action: At the inspection outbriefing, M and R Helicopters LLC agreed to 

immediately ensure that the Breath Alcohol Technician would complete Step 1 of the Alcohol 

Testing Form. In the response dated March 18, 2004, M and R Helicopters LLC submitted a 

copy of an Error Correction Training Checklist from Clinical Laboratories, Inc. documenting 

training for Denese Miller. 

<fAW f 
Employee Name: ^cA OJ^ J 

Date: ^"1 - POC ^ 

49 CFR 40.25 requires DOT regulated companies to check the drug and alcohol testing record of new 

employees who were previously employed by a DOT regulated employer. 

1. Have you been employed by any DOT regulated company within the last 24 months? (check one) 

\y] YES [ J NO 

If YES, please provide the name, address and phone number of the facility. (If more than one, list names, 

addresses, phone on the back of this form.) 

Al^ M^'^^ ^ Cot^^ 

79^11 S^ PGO\/^U ^' t , lO<^^ j/gK/<:r?^f^<^t^ h I Ai^yoo^t A?g./^L<;/^n> ^ 

3o'L-^H1~i99z 

2. Have you ever tested positive or refused to test on any pre-employment drug or alcohol test 

administered by an employer to which you applied for, but did not obtain, safety-sensitive work covered 

by DOT drug and alcohol testing rules during the past two years? (check one) 

• YES [B^ NO 

Signed: 

^Ah^ % 
Page 1 of2 

From: "Ed Baker" <ebaker@ainnethods.com> 

To: <mselig@ptd.net> 

Sent: Sunday, November 28,2010 10:41 PM 

Subject: FW: Edward L. Baker Mi 

Mike, below is the letter from our Drug program manager to the FAA. 

Ed Baker 

Base Lead Pilot 

East Stroudsburg Base 

Air Methods Corporation 

(570) 476-2129 phone 

(570) 476-2128 fax 

(570) 730-3131 cell 

ebaker@airmethods.com 

From: John Hargleroad 

Sent: Mon 11/15/2010 11:40 AM 

To: Ed Baker 

Subject: FW: Edward L. Baker III 

Ed, 

Here is a copy of the email that I sent Chet Stevenson with FAA drug abatement. Please feel free to call me if 

you need anything. 

Regards, 

John Hargleroad 

Anti-Drug and Aicohoi Program Manager 

PRIA Manager 

Pilot Records Supervisor 

Air Methods Corp 

7301 S. Peoria St 

Englewood, CO 80112 

Off: 303-749-1373 

Fax: 303-749-1383 

Cell: 314-753-2482 

jhargieroad@airmethods.com 

From: John Hargleroad 

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:45 AM 

To: chet.stevenson@faa.gov 

Subject: Edward L. Baker m 

Chet, 

Edward L. Baker ill, SSN 158545206, has been continually in the Air IVIethods DOT Anti-Drug and Alcohol 

program since 11/5/2007. He is a pilot who also holds a A&P certificate, however he is under our master 

^ 11/29/2010 
Page 2 of2 

certificate QMLA253U and does not perform any maintenance under our repair station certificate QMLR253U, 

and is not authorized or contracted by Air Methods to do any outside maintenance for M&R Helicopters or any 

other operator. 

Please reply to let me know that you have received this email. 

Regards, 

John Hargleroad 

Anti-Drug and Alcohol Program Manager 

PRIA Manager 

Pilot Records Supervisor 

Air Methods Corp 

7301 S. Peoria St. 

Englewood, CO 80112 

Off: 303-749-1373 

Fax: 303-749-1383 

Cell: 314-753-2482 

jhargleroad@airmethods.com 

11/29/2010 
iOP9 

Inspector Statement 

On Tuesday, July 21, 2009, the FAA inspection team (Latonya Williams and Kimmy 

Poon) conducted an inspection of M and R Helicopters, LLC's dnjg and alcohol 

programs. During the Inspection, it was identified that M and R Helicopters, LLC did not 

determine that Eugene Mcintosh and Edward Baker (contractors) were covered under a 

F/VA-mandated drug testing program and an alcohol misuse prevention program prior to 

using their services. 

In regards to Eugene Mcintosh, the president/drug program manager of M and R 

Helicopters, LLC, Dr. Michael Selig, stated that Eugene Mcintosh was working for Scott 

Richard Aviation, which is a Part 145 certificate holder that has FAA mandated drug and 

alcohol testing programs. The inspection team visited Scott Richard Aviation on July 21, 

2009, and confirmed with Scott Richard Aviation that it does have an active drug and 

alcohol testing program. It was also verbally confirmed through Scott Richard Aviation 

that Eugene Mcintosh is covered under Scott Richard Aviation's programs. However, 

Eugene Mcintosh was compensated by Dr. Michael Selig and not Scott Richard 

Aviation. -

In regards to Edward Baker, Dr. Michael Selig stated that Mr. Baker works for Flight 

Methods as a Chief Medivac pilot. The inspection team inquired of information 

pertaining to Flight Methods from Dr. Selig and he indicated that he did not have any 

Information such as a telephone number or address for the company. A review of the 

F/\A's databases (SPAS and ICETS) did not reveal that Flight Methods has an F/\A 

approved drug and alcohol testing program. Furthermore, a review of FAA's databases 

(SPAS and ICETS) also does not identify Edward Baker, III as having an F/\A approved 

drug and alcohol testing program. 

^A£S^ci.^ ^ 

Latonya-Williams, Inspector 

Eastern Compliance and Enforcement Center 

Drug Abatement Division 

Office of Aerospace Medicine 

H 

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 

Public availability to be determined under 5 USC 552 
1 Earhart Drive • Suite 11 • Coatesville, PA 19320 484-288-2800 

www.eramedllc.com 

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 

Edward Baker 

5 Sarah's Lane 

East Stroudsburg, PA 18302 

Dear Ed, 

This letter is being written to verify that Edward Baker was included in EraMED's drug 

program during his dates of empioyement: 5-1-2006 to 11-4-2007. 

If you have any questions or concerns please contact me at your convenience. 

Thanks, 

/^J ^ 

n 

Melissa Rodriguez 

Accounting Manager 

mrodriguez@eramedllc.com 

5 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Operations Specifications 

A449. Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program HQ Control: 

HQ Revision: 

(^ 01/22/04 

000 ^ 

The certificate holder who operates under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 135 

certifies that it will comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 121 Appendices I and J and 

49 CFR jPart 40 for its Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program. 

Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program records are maintained and available for inspection 

by the FAA's Drug Abatement Compliance and Enforcement Inspectors at the location listed in Table 1 

below: 

Address: 

Address: 

City: 

State: 

Zip code: 

Table 1 

Location of Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse 

Prevention Program Records: 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem 

PA 

18017 

Telephone Number: 

(610) 769-7000 

c. Limitations and Provisions. 

(1) Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program inspections and enforcement activity will be 

conducted exclusively by the Drug Abatement Division. All questions regarding this program 

should be directed to the Drug Abatement Division. 

(2) The certificate holder must implement its Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs fully 

in accordance with 14 CFR Part 121, Appendices I and J, and 49 CFR Part 40. 

(3) The certificate holder is responsible for ensuring that its contractors who perform safety-sensitive 

work for the certificate holder are subject to Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programs. 

(4) The certificate holder is responsible for updating this operations specification when any changes 

occur in the following: ' 

(a) Location or phone number where the Antidrug and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Records are 

kept (as listed in Table 1 above). 

(b) If the certificate holder's number of safety-sensitive employees goes to 50 and above, or falls 

below 50 safety-sensitive employees. '••-'•' ', ." 

(5) The certificate holder with 50 or more employees performing a safety-sensitive fijnction on 

January 1 of the calendar year must submit an annual report to the Drug Abatement Division of the 

FAA. The certificate holder with fewer than 50 employees performing a safety-sensitive function 

on January 1 of any calendar year must submit an annual report upon request of the Administrator, 

as specified in the regulations. 

The certificate holder has fewer than 50 safety-sensitive employees. 

Print Date: 8/15/2005 A449-1 

M AND R HELICOPTERS LLC 

Certificate No.: MR3A020K 

FOR OFF m USE ONLY 

Public avallabiily to be determined under 5 USC S52 

f*,>rt 0 
NOTE: Whenever a compliance statement directs M&R Helicopters, LLC. to 

mail or deliver documents to the Allentown, PA, FSDO, the following address will 

be used: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Flight Standards District Office 

961 Marcon Boulevard, Suite 111 

Allentown, Pennsylvania 18103 

REGULATION COMPLIANCE FAA USE 

SUBPART A - GENERAL 

135.1 The regulations governing air carrier operations that are 

contained in FAR part 135, as amended, apply to M & R 

Helicopters, LLC, and will be complied with as shown below. 

(a)(l)M & R Helicopters, LLC. will conduct on-demand 

operations as a holder of an Air Carrier Certificate 

under Part 119 of this chapter. 

(a)(2) M&R Helicopters, LLC. will Insure that all 

contractors, employees, and persons performing 

^*^ maintenance, preventive maintenance, and/or 

alterations of its aircraft will comply with the 

applicable rules of this part. 

(a)(3)M & R Helicopters, LLC. will not transport mail. 

(a)(4)Not applicable. M&R Helicopters, LLC. will not 

apply for provisional approval of an advanced 

Qualification Program curriculum, curriculum 

segment, or portion of a curriculum segment under 

SFAR No. 58. 

(a)(5) Any nonstop sightseeing flights conducted by 

M&R Helicopters, LLC. for compensation or hire 

within 25 statute miles of an airport will be conducted 

under the provisions of this Part; however, except for 

operations conducted under SFAR 50-2, these operations, 

when conducted for compensation or hire, will comply 

only with 135.249, 135.251, 135.253, 135.255, and 

135.353. 

fAM -^. 
M&R Helicopters, LLC. will be a member of an FAAapprovedConsortium, or will have its own approved 

program, with membership initiated at the time ATCO 

certificate is issued. Consortium membership will insure 

compliance with Appendices I of FAR Part 121. 

M&R Helicopters, LLC. will insure that any contractor 

who performs maintenance on Its aircraft is covered by 

an FAA-Approved drug-testing program. 

135.253(a) M&R Helicopters, LLC. will comply with the provisions of 

FAR Part 135.253, in regard to employees who perform 

a function listed in Appendix J to Part 121 of this chapter, 

as set forth below. 

135.253(b) M&R Helicopters, LLC. will allow no covered employee, as 

described in Appendix I of FAR Part 121, to report for 

duty or to remain on duty, and no covered employee shall 

report for duty for any covered position, if that person 

has an alcohol concentration of 0.04 or greater. 

135.253(c) M&R Helicopters, LLC. will not permit the use of, and no 

covered employee of M & R Helicopters, LLC, will use, 

alcohol while performing any safety-sensitive function. 

135.253(d) M&R Helicopters, LLC will not allow, nor will any covered 

employee perform, any flight crewmember duties within 8 

hours of using alcohol. M&R Helicopters, LLC does not have 

any covered employees other than flight crewmembers. 

135.253(e) No M & R Helicopters, LLC. covered employee will use alcohol 

for 8 hours following an accident involving an aircraft for 

which that employee has performed a safety-sensitive 

function, unless and until he has been given a post-accident 

alcohol test, or unless M&R Helicopters, LLC has determined 

that the employee's performance could not have contributed 

to the accident. 

w 

38 
& 

U.S. Department pug^, Standards District Office 961 Marcon Blvd., Suite 111 

of Transportation Allentown. Pennsylvania 18109 

Federal Aviation 610-264-2888; Fax 610-264-3179 

Administration 

June 19, 2007 

Mr. Michael B. Selig 

President, M&R Helicopters, LLC. 

2045 Westgate Drive 

Bethlehem, PA 18017 

Dear Mr. SeUg: 

On Friday, June 15, 2007, Michael B. Selig failed his Airman Competency / Proficiency 

Check during the oral portion of the examination. 

A competency / proficiency check is required for operations under the provisions of Federal 

Aviation Regulations 14 CFR Part 135. Michael B. Selig is not to act as a pilot during 14 

CFR Part 135 operations under the provisions of your air carrier operation until satisfactory 

completion of said check. 

If you have any questions relative to this matter, please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely, 

- Frank Alotta Jr. 

Principal Inspector Operations 

{/)M V' 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Lotonya Williams 

Complainants 

M&R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

FAA Case 2009SO950434 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this day served the foregoing entrie(s): 

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO QUASH. STRIKE OR DISMISS COMPLAINT 

RESPONDENT'S BRIEF SUPPORTING THE MOTION TO QUASH. STRIKE OR DISMISS 

COMPLAINT 

upon all parties of record in this proceeding, in accordance with the requirements of Rule 29 

pursuant to 28U.S.C.§ 1746 . 

Service bv first-class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

600 Independence Avenue, SW 

Wilbur Wright Avenue-Suite 2W1000 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Att: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Laura Ponto, Esq 

Enforcement Division/AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

FAA 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

FAX 202 267 5106 

By: 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, Pa. 18104 

610 360 3953 

Date: w- <lp-{ ^